A contempt petition has been moved before the Supreme Court alleging inaction by the Delhi High Court in processing pending applications for conferment of Senior Advocate designation. The plea asserts that the High Court has failed to act in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directive issued on April 15, 2024.
The April 15 order, delivered by a bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, required the Delhi High Court to reconsider afresh all applications that were either deferred or disallowed in November 2024 under the Delhi High Court Designation of Senior Advocates Rules, 2024. This directive came while hearing challenges to the notification dated November 29, 2024, through which 70 advocates were conferred Senior status, while 67 others were placed on a Deferred List citing procedural concerns.
The dispute gained prominence following the resignation of Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog, formerly part of the Permanent Committee entrusted with evaluation of candidates for designation. He alleged that the final list was issued without his concurrence. As recorded, interviews concluded on November 19, 2024, and a meeting on November 25 witnessed circulation of a provisional list proposed by the then Chief Justice, which was to be finalised in the subsequent meeting scheduled for December 2, 2024. According to Nandrajog, the second meeting never materialised.
Other members of the Committee at that time included Chief Justice Manmohan, Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice Yashwant Varma, ASG Chetan Sharma, and Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur.
Acting on earlier petitions, the Supreme Court had directed issuance of notice to the Registrar General, Delhi High Court, as well as Nandrajog, and sought the Committee’s report in sealed cover. Upon examining the sealed documents, the Court observed that the Committee had ventured beyond its statutory scope by recommending names for designation, an act contrary to the framework laid down in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India. Justice Oka reiterated that the Committee’s authority is restricted to quantifying candidates’ merit through objective assessment and does not extend to recommendatory powers, a principle also reaffirmed in the Jitender Kalla ruling.
The present contempt proceedings have been initiated by Advocate Sanjay Dubey, whose application for senior designation was previously declined. His writ petition had earlier been disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court’s directions in Raman @ Raman Gandhi v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi & Anr, where the April 15 directive was issued. Dubey’s second petition challenging the outcome was dismissed in January, prompting the current contempt action alleging non-implementation of the Supreme Court’s mandate.
Picture Source :
